Lets break down their arguments
It's not that Vista is awful. The integrated security and parental controls are nice, and the Aero interface is as whizzy as it gets. Searching and wireless networking are much faster and easier than under XP.
I love how they skip over so many of the other things in Vista including better security (even without UAC), also if something has so many positives how can it be the most disappointing.
It's just that Vista isn't all that good. Many of the innovations the operating system was supposed to bring--like more efficient file and communications systems--got tossed overboard as Microsoft struggled to get the OS out the door, some three years after it was first promised.
So Vista isn't good because they cut some features, basically if Microsoft had kept you entirely in the dark so you didn't know what they cut then Vista would be a better operating system?
Despite its hefty hardware requirements, Vista is slower than XP.
Truely damned if you do damned if you don't, Vista has "hefty" requirements because you need a relatively recent PC to benefit from vista however if Microsoft had actually listed 1GB of RAM as the minimum requirement (the minimum for Vista to run well) PC World would be complaining even more about hefty requirements.
When it debuted last January, incompatibilities were rampant--in part because hardware and software makers didn't feel any urgency to revamp their products to work with the new OS.
Wouldn't that make nVidia's, or Creative's drivers the most disappointing tech product of the year, Vista was in beta for a long time there is no excuse for not having adequate drivers when Vista came out.
The user account controls that were supposed to make users feel safer just made them feel irritated.
The annoyance caused by UAC is significantly overstated, for most people UAC isn't a problem past the first few days and generally decreasing in prevalence as the computer is used more.
And at $399 ($299 upgrade) for Windows Ultimate, we couldn't help feeling more than a little gouged.
Is Ultimate expensive? Yeah, but very few people need ultimate, most people would be just fine with either Home Premium or Business which are right in line with XP prices.
No wonder so many users are clinging to XP like shipwrecked sailors to a life raft, while others who made the upgrade are switching back.
There is demand to keep XP because of articles like this that overstate problems with Vista and talk about compatibility problems that existed 10 months ago without saying that they are all but fixed by now.
And when the fastest Vista notebook PC World has ever tested is an Apple MacBook Pro, there's something deeply wrong with the universe.
Why is this news let alone wrong? Vista runs well on a $3000 laptop with 4GB of RAM, stop the presses.
We have no doubt Vista will come to dominate the PC landscape, if only because it will become increasingly hard to buy a new machine that doesn't have it pre-installed. And that's disappointing in its own right.
So progress is disappointing, certainly if you use some arbitrary criteria which overstates problems, emphasizes problems that don't exist and doesn't acknowledge the majority of features new to Vista then yes it is disappointing but to those of us that have been happy with Vista for the past few months (at least) more people switching and the end of absurd articles like this is hardly disappointing
Facebook
Twitter